I've been doing my Chauncey routine and just watching, but what the fuck does the RNA/DNA question have to do with whether or not we have a common ancestor. If RNA came first, then DNA, we could have a common ancestor. And visa versa.
We don't have the specifics. The first living things weren't kind enough to have bones and stuff and hence they are sort of hard to track down. We can work backwards via our genes and figure out where things came from over time, but not so specifically that we can define or describe the first living things yet. And we may never be able to. But in the meantime, we're here, and without either a god or intelligence involved, it still appears to be possible that life started on its on.
We could be wrong. Maybe a god did do it. May a non-god with gobs of intelligence and good looks did it. May all of this stuff came from other dimensions that we can't detect. But based on what we can see, what we can measure, what we can investigate, what we can disassemble, what we can discover, it appears quite likely that life started on its own and that the evolved creatures that we are came from very simple beginnings. We have so much genetic evidence of a common ancestors and such that it would be foolhearty to just ignore that information and fill in everything with even more undefinable, and less provable, intelligent design.
Science is not afraid to find externalities that defy explanation. Right now there are physicists seriously exploring the possibility that the entire universe is a hologram. You know, like Princess Leia in Star wars flicking on and off in her first crude appearance. The whole universe might be some variation no that theme. And if it is, then you guys can run around yelling intelligent design at the top of your lungs and we won't have much to say in response.
Right now science is trying to solve the mysteries of life based on the evidence that is available. Id'ers want us to assume that there are blanks to be filled in, and assume that those blanks involve external intelligence, and most of those people want to continue that pattern of assumption and guess wildly that their specific version of god was involved. And if they had anything to offer outside of their complete misunderstanding and/or ignorance of science, like, you know, evidence of their own, that would be great. But it is so easy to disassemble their few and flimsy claims that it generally isn't worth it for the science side to send anyone over twelve years of age into the fray. Except here, perhaps, where we do it at the hobby level.
Its fine for people to think that the world was intelligently designed. But they have to realize that if all they can do is "think" that to be the case, and if they can't provide any solid evidence for their claims, then they have nothing for us to work with, and hence we will summarily reject their ideas until such time as ID'ers can muster less contrarian versions of their "discoveries" and "claims".
When science says "We don't know", ID'ers take that as carte blanche permission to dismiss all discovery that flies in the face of ID IDeals. But when I was in high school, we didn't know how photosynthesis worked, though plants did it anyway. Now we know. But had you asked for details in the 1060's we would have had to say "We don't know", because we didn't. So Im confidence that many of todays "I don't knows" will have very specific and provable answers in the coming years. You gotta learn to be patient.
Give us a few more decades and we'll have far fewer "don't knows" to argue over. Give us a century or two and maybe we'll have so few that you ID types will have to slink away with your tails between your legs. Or, if you're lucky, it might be science slinking away. For now, our lack of proof in some departments and your lack of proof in any department means that we are at a standstill. Because you don't know when you're dead in the water, and you keep claiming that you're doing fine.
Live with it. And accept that while ID science types are looking under every nook and cranny for better excuses, real scientists are doing real science and improving our knowledge base at our current rate, which is measured in units best described as "leaps and bounds". And science will be doing this for years to come. The ID argument will remain static, and just as desperate, and just as lacking in specifics, probably for centuries. So while science continues to add relevant information on a daily basis, you ID proponents need to do the same thing, or you'll be dead in the water. And you'll start to look like fools.
Oops, I'm too late. Sorry, but I was trying to save you guys from some embarrassment. To do any good, I should have written this in 1975. My bad.